in collins, 5th circuit granted relief on the constitutional claim limited to striking for cause removal prospectively. this even though HERA doesn't have a separability clause. So NWS not stricken on constitutional claim. But this opinion on the constitutional claim likely to be appealed by fhfa, and the APA claim denial and the denial of invalidation of NWS as relief for the constitutional claim also likely to be appealed by Ps, and I think scotus takes case.

question is whether scotus reviews APA claim (both dc and 5th circuits had one judge dissenting) denial or only the separation of powers claim. assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, he is a solid vote for upholding the unconstitutionally structured argument, but he called for severing the for cause provision in his cfpb case (PHH). however, the cfpb statute had a severability clause in the statute and HERA does not, and Lucia now stands for the proposition that in a separation of powers case (appointments clause), relief should be granted that encourages Ps to bring challenges.

so thin gruel, but gruel nonetheless. up to now, we have been grueless, just like Oliver Twist.

does this change mnuchin's apparent timeline of a) working with congress first in 2019 and b) if that fails do something administratively? thank you

depends on whether appealed. I would think fhfa has to appeal, and Ps certainly will. if the appeal is taken by scotus, my guess is that administration may hold fire. just a guess

thank you. unlike many investors, mnuchin can easily sit back and wait 4-6 months to get a better sense of how things stand - he's already given himself the time cushion. but some of these cases seem to be drifting to 2019-2020 and so at some point (hopefully after midterms) perhaps he needs to just get going on a plan without perfect info from the courts.

could this ruling help in any other pending court cases like the perry remand, Sweeney, Delaware, or saxton? thank you

does this change mnuchin's apparent timeline of a) working with congress first in 2019 and b) if that fails do something administratively? thank you

depends on whether appealed. I would think fhfa has to appeal, and Ps certainly will. if the appeal is taken by scotus, my guess is that administration may hold fire. just a guess

thank you. unlike many investors, mnuchin can easily sit back and wait 4-6 months to get a better sense of how things stand - he's already given himself the time cushion. but some of these cases seem to be drifting to 2019-2020 and so at some point (hopefully after midterms) perhaps he needs to just get going on a plan without perfect info from the courts.

could this ruling help in any other pending court cases like the perry remand, Sweeney, Delaware, or saxton? thank you

the collins analysis is directly usable by bhatti in an 8th circuit appeal. not in fairholme nor Delaware. saxton has already been argued, but I am sure Ps will be filing the collins opinion with the Saxton court as a supplemental authority, and adding where it didn't go far enough.

Could someone (Chris) explain this line in the opinion "We are satisfied that the Shareholders’ injury is fairly traceable to the FHFA’s unconstitutional structure" or "the Shareholders’ injury stems from the continued harm caused by the FHFA’s ongoing conservatorship without executive oversight" and then ruling "We leave intact the remainder of HERA and the FHFA’s past actions— including the Third Amendment. In striking the offending provision from HERA, the FHFA survives as a properly supervised executive agency".